53
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Sep, 2009 09:17 pm
@DontTreadOnMe,
I wonder why he questions where the tax funds came from to provide him with public education? Public education benefits everybody in this country by providing the foundation for our economy - to ensure that our children continue to get a good education to compete in the global marketplace. If ican ever bothered to read about our educational system compared to other developed and developing countries, we are falling behind in math and science; this is where the future of the world economy will make the difference.

0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  5  
Reply Tue 1 Sep, 2009 10:02 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
That's right. The marriage laws in every state now apply the exact same rules without prejudice to all persons regardless of race, creed, ethnicity, socioeconomic standing, politics, gender, or sexual orientation. There is no law that says you have to be heterosexual or homosexual or belong to any group or pay dues to some organization or even like your intended spouse in order to have the right to get married however.

And there's no law that says you have to be a union member in order to work.

Foxfyre wrote:
A law that does require people to pay dues to and enrich and empower some group in order to exercise a necessary component of one's Constitutionally protected right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, however, is something quite different, and something that should not be allowed to stand by anybody who values and loves freedom, liberty, and believes in the concept of unalienable rights.

A government who requires union membership in order to work under a government contract has the power to require union membership in order to work.

I'm disappointed: you don't even understand your own argument. There's no law that requires union membership in order to work under a government contract. A non-union member always has the option of joining the union. Either that, or he chooses not to work. Those are his options, and they're the same options that a union member has. According to your reasoning, that's not unfair at all.

Foxfyre wrote:
The mark of the beast? Who knows.

Wow, you've really jumped into the deep end of crazy now.
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Sep, 2009 10:03 pm
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
You really don't know anything about securities, do you. And now I'm beginning to suspect that you don't know anything about money either. Is there any end to the subjects about which you are willing to opine and about which you know nothing?


Of course, PRINTED MONEY are one kind of SECURITIES.


You didn't answer my question.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  5  
Reply Tue 1 Sep, 2009 10:09 pm
@Debra Law,
Debra Law wrote:
No one was arguing that the federal government is REQUIRED by the constitution to provide relief or benefits to people. Because Congress is authorized to spend money for the general welfare, Congress MAY provide relief or benefits to people. See Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937).

Now see, this is your problem: you're actually citing supreme court precedent, when the people with whom you're arguing don't recognize any higher legal authority than the editors of the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Citing supreme court interpretations of the constitution to them, therefore, is just so much wasted effort.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Sep, 2009 10:18 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
That's right. The marriage laws in every state now apply the exact same rules without prejudice to all persons regardless of race, creed, ethnicity, socioeconomic standing, politics, gender, or sexual orientation. There is no law that says you have to be heterosexual or homosexual or belong to any group or pay dues to some organization or even like your intended spouse in order to have the right to get married however.

And there's no law that says you have to be a union member in order to work.

Foxfyre wrote:
A law that does require people to pay dues to and enrich and empower some group in order to exercise a necessary component of one's Constitutionally protected right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, however, is something quite different, and something that should not be allowed to stand by anybody who values and loves freedom, liberty, and believes in the concept of unalienable rights.

A government who requires union membership in order to work under a government contract has the power to require union membership in order to work.

I'm disappointed: you don't even understand your own argument. There's no law that requires union membership in order to work under a government contract. A non-union member always has the option of joining the union. Either that, or he chooses not to work. Those are his options, and they're the same options that a union member has. According to your reasoning, that's not unfair at all.

Foxfyre wrote:
The mark of the beast? Who knows.

Wow, you've really jumped into the deep end of crazy now.

Fox would also have a hard time accounting for support of a "don't ask, don't tell, policy too.

Wanna serve your country in the military? Everyone is given the choice to live as a heterosexual. Maybe you could live in the closet for the benefit of the country and the rights of everyone... well almost everyone.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Sep, 2009 11:18 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
That's right. The marriage laws in every state now apply the exact same rules without prejudice to all persons regardless of race, creed, ethnicity, socioeconomic standing, politics, gender, or sexual orientation. There is no law that says you have to be heterosexual or homosexual or belong to any group or pay dues to some organization or even like your intended spouse in order to have the right to get married however.

And there's no law that says you have to be a union member in order to work.


No. But if the only jobs available are union jobs financed by the government, then you do have to be a union member in order to work.

Quote:
Foxfyre wrote:
A law that does require people to pay dues to and enrich and empower some group in order to exercise a necessary component of one's Constitutionally protected right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, however, is something quite different, and something that should not be allowed to stand by anybody who values and loves freedom, liberty, and believes in the concept of unalienable rights.

A government who requires union membership in order to work under a government contract has the power to require union membership in order to work.

I'm disappointed: you don't even understand your own argument. There's no law that requires union membership in order to work under a government contract. A non-union member always has the option of joining the union. Either that, or he chooses not to work. Those are his options, and they're the same options that a union member has. According to your reasoning, that's not unfair at all.


And you are missing the point entirely just as you missed (ignored?) the accompanying analogies. If the government says you have to belong to a union to qualify for a government job, what is the difference between that and the goernment saying you have to belong to the Republican Party to qualify for a government job? Would you not object mightily to the latter? If so, why?

And why do you think it is okay for the government to enrich unions by requiring you to belong to a union to qualify for the only job that might be available in your area?

Quote:
Foxfyre wrote:
The mark of the beast? Who knows.

Wow, you've really jumped into the deep end of crazy now.


It's a metaphor though I do make allowances for liberals who often have a lot of trouble conceptualizing such things. Many thought the 'mark of the beast' was the tattoo that the German government required all Jews to have. Many think that a national ID could have the same effect by making it easier to discriminate against or favor certain people over others. It could even eventually be a union card. It doesn't have to have any kind of deep mystical meaning or be crazy in concept at all.

A government powerful enough to gradually take over the means of production of a nation or control what citizens can or cannot work can do pretty much what it wants to do to anybody.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 12:01 am
Foxie, Please provide the rule/law that workers must be union members in order to work for the government?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 12:22 am
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I doubt that you can find any Constitutional case law ruling on whether it is the government's prerogative to dispense charity because I don't think the question has ever been put to SCOTUS.

No. But the constitution empowers Congress to tax, and to spend tax revenue for the general welfare. The Supreme Court, drawing on a tradition of constitutional interpretation going back to Alexander Hamilton, has held that this is an independent grant of power, and that it's up to Congress to decide what the general welfare is. If Congress determines that financial support for the poor furthers the general welfare, then all is well as far as the constitution is concerned.

I suspect the point will forever be lost on you, because you insist on falsely believing that all the other founding fathers agreed with Madison's view of the welfare clause. But they did not. Hamilton -- and early commentaries on the Constitution such as Joseph Story's -- held pretty much the view that modern caselaw reflects as well. So the New Deal Supreme Court didn't come up with a new interpretation of the welfare clause. It merely enacted Hamilton's interpretation over Madison's. You won't find a judge of any standing in constitutional who still defends Madison's interpretation. That includes the conservative, originalist judges such as Scalia and Thomas.


But I am confident that neither Scalia, who is adament that the Constitution was never intended to be a 'living document' blown about by politics or the social whims of any era nor Thomas who believes the Constitution should be interpreted within the light of natural law would say that no judge should be in the business of rewriting the Constitution to mean what the judge thinks it should say instead of what it says.

And, if judges have rewritten and changed the Constitution to a document more to their liking, judges can also reverse the trend and begin interpreting the Constitution more as it was intended. Congress could hasten that process by passing laws toward that end such as a law that the Federal government will not be in the business of dispensing any further charity and will begin transferring that responsibility to the states.

Your assertion about what I falsely believe is in itself false.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 07:18 am
@ican711nm,
So... according to the definition of "imply" ican, it means that something is NOT expressly stated in the constitution if you can only imply it is there.

Doesn't that directly contradict your claim that only things that are EXPRESSLY in the constitution are constitutional?
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 07:24 am
@ican711nm,
I don't know ican but if you want to argue money is "security" then that means you can't claim money can't be exchanged for something of value.
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 07:49 am
I have some questions for all of you that are blaming conservatives for the debate and acrimony regarding health care.

IF that were true, then why have the dems behaved so badly.
We have had a dem representative order a man removed from a meeting because he asked her a question, and he didnt have the right ticket to allow him to speak.
(Carol Shea-Porter D-NH was the guilty dem)

We have had another dem talk on the cell phone while being asked a question at a meeting, claiming she had to "multi-task".
(Sheila Jackson-Lee is the dem I am talking about)

We have had a liberal attack a dem politicians office, then the dems blamed it on repubs.

Dems are now calling dissent "unpatriotic" or "unamerican", yet the insisted the exact opposite when the repubs controlled the WH.
(Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer in USA Today newspaper)
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/08/unamerican-attacks-cant-derail-health-care-debate-.html

Now it seems to me, that if the dems really are the better behaved and the more openminded, none of the things I listed would have happened.
Why are they?

http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnHawkins/2009/09/01/the_top_7_most_embarrassing_town_hall_moments_for_democrats
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 07:55 am
@mysteryman,
it's simple, politicians (and that means politicians from every party in existence) and their supporters are morons at best and scumbags at worst, i've tried to explain this to the people who follow politics but they don't seem to get it
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 07:59 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
And there's no law that says you have to be a union member in order to work.


No. But if the only jobs available are union jobs financed by the government, then you do have to be a union member in order to work.

What's the problem with that? A non-union construction worker has the same choices that are available to a union member: he can either choose to join the union or he can choose not to work.

Foxfyre wrote:
And you are missing the point entirely just as you missed (ignored?) the accompanying analogies. If the government says you have to belong to a union to qualify for a government job, what is the difference between that and the goernment saying you have to belong to the Republican Party to qualify for a government job? Would you not object mightily to the latter? If so, why?

The question isn't whether I would object, it's whether you should object given your stance on gay marriage. What's the difference between the government saying you have to belong to a union to get a job and the government saying you have to marry someone of the opposite sex to enjoy the benefits of marriage?

Foxfyre wrote:
And why do you think it is okay for the government to enrich unions by requiring you to belong to a union to qualify for the only job that might be available in your area?

The government is doing no such thing. Remember, nobody has to join a union. A non-union worker can always choose not to work.

Foxfyre wrote:
It's a metaphor though I do make allowances for liberals who often have a lot of trouble conceptualizing such things.

A metaphor for what?

Foxfyre wrote:
Many thought the 'mark of the beast' was the tattoo that the German government required all Jews to have. Many think that a national ID could have the same effect by making it easier to discriminate against or favor certain people over others. It could even eventually be a union card. It doesn't have to have any kind of deep mystical meaning or be crazy in concept at all.

Well, it doesn't have to be crazy, but it doesn't hurt.

Foxfyre wrote:
A government powerful enough to gradually take over the means of production of a nation or control what citizens can or cannot work can do pretty much what it wants to do to anybody.

Oh brother!
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 08:10 am
@joefromchicago,
Quote:
What's the problem with that? A non-union construction worker has the same choices that are available to a union member: he can either choose to join the union or he can choose not to work.


So you do not believe in the "right to work" laws?

Right-to-work laws are statutes enforced in twenty-two U.S. states, mostly in the southern or western U.S., allowed under provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act, which prohibit agreements between trade unions and employers making membership or payment of union dues or "fees" a condition of employment, either before or after hiring.

joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 08:18 am
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:
So you do not believe in the "right to work" laws?

It has been a long time since I've looked closely at federal labor statutes, but, in general, I'm not a big fan of "right to work" laws.
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 08:29 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
But I am confident that neither Scalia, who is adament that the Constitution was never intended to be a 'living document' blown about by politics or the social whims of any era nor Thomas who believes the Constitution should be interpreted within the light of natural law would say that no judge should be in the business of rewriting the Constitution to mean what the judge thinks it should say instead of what it says.

Hamilton's view that the welfare clause is an independent and broad grant of power dates back, well, to Hamilton, the founding era. Therefore, endorsing Hamilton's view of the clause over Madison's is perfectly consistent with opposing the concept of the "living constitution". The only thing this is inconsistent with is your policy preferences.

Foxfyre wrote:
Your assertion about what I falsely believe is in itself false.

Your objection is noted. I stand by my assertion.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 09:57 am
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
And there's no law that says you have to be a union member in order to work.


No. But if the only jobs available are union jobs financed by the government, then you do have to be a union member in order to work.

What's the problem with that? A non-union construction worker has the same choices that are available to a union member: he can either choose to join the union or he can choose not to work.


What is 'wrong with that' is that making union membership a requisite for working for federal money is granting a benefit to unions that is not available to anybody else. It is the same abuse of federal powers as was inherent in the 'cash for clunkers' program--one industry was favored while manufacturers of other products were not able to participate and were likely harmed by the initiative.

If you cannot see the potential for, even probability of corruptuion and abuse of powers in such things, then I don't know what I could say that might educate you.

Quote:
Foxfyre wrote:
And you are missing the point entirely just as you missed (ignored?) the accompanying analogies. If the government says you have to belong to a union to qualify for a government job, what is the difference between that and the goernment saying you have to belong to the Republican Party to qualify for a government job? Would you not object mightily to the latter? If so, why?

The question isn't whether I would object, it's whether you should object given your stance on gay marriage. What's the difference between the government saying you have to belong to a union to get a job and the government saying you have to marry someone of the opposite sex to enjoy the benefits of marriage?


I do not object to 'gay marriage' in any sense. I object to changing a non discriminatory definition of marriage that has stood for millenia and thereby changing the institution into something entirely different from what it is. I do object to any kind of special rights for gays as much as I object to any kind of special rights for anybody. I am 100% in favor of new rules/laws that would meet important needs of gay people along with all other people who for whatever reason cannot or do not wish to marry and such new rule/law should be as uniform and administered in a non discriminatory way as the marriage laws now are.

Uniform rules for administration of marriage do not advantage any special interest group. Requiring union membership absolutely advantages a special interest group.

Quote:
Foxfyre wrote:
And why do you think it is okay for the government to enrich unions by requiring you to belong to a union to qualify for the only job that might be available in your area?

The government is doing no such thing. Remember, nobody has to join a union. A non-union worker can always choose not to work.


Requiring union membership advantages a special interest group. It is immoral and a violation of individual rights for the Federal government to force somebody to advantage a special interest group in order to work. Not only is it immoral and a violation of rights, but it opens the door for the Federal government to require union membership to work anywhere and thereby hand almost unlimited powers to the unions.

You may not see a problem with that. I do.

Quote:
Foxfyre wrote:
It's a metaphor though I do make allowances for liberals who often have a lot of trouble conceptualizing such things.

A metaphor for what?

Foxfyre wrote:
Many thought the 'mark of the beast' was the tattoo that the German government required all Jews to have. Many think that a national ID could have the same effect by making it easier to discriminate against or favor certain people over others. It could even eventually be a union card. It doesn't have to have any kind of deep mystical meaning or be crazy in concept at all.

Well, it doesn't have to be crazy, but it doesn't hurt.


M.O. - if you can't rebut a point, ridicule it?

Question: Would you object to the government requiring you to join and contribute to the Republican Party before you would be eligible to work? Why or why not?

What difference would there be between that and a government requirement that you join a union?

Quote:
Foxfyre wrote:
A government powerful enough to gradually take over the means of production of a nation or control what citizens can or cannot work can do pretty much what it wants to do to anybody.

Oh brother!


I take it you disagree. But I guarantee you can't competently rebut the principle.
Cycloptichorn
 
  6  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 10:01 am
@Foxfyre,
Quote:


I do not object to 'gay marriage' in any sense.


Of course you do, repeatedly and loudly. See, you say it right here:

Quote:
I object to changing a non discriminatory definition of marriage that has stood for millenia and thereby changing the institution into something entirely different from what it is.


This is a cute way of saying 'I don't want gays to be able to marry.' And nothing more or less. You are merely trying to couch your bigotry with complicated phrases.

You are trying to have it both ways; Joe has you dead to rights on this one. You don't mind at all if the government requires participation in a certain group in order to enjoy certain benefits; just not groups you don't like.

Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 10:26 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Foxie is full of her own contradictions, but she manages to still fool some of the people like okie, ican, and herself.
0 Replies
 
Rockhead
 
  2  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 10:33 am
@Foxfyre,
the mark of the beast.

“If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on the forehead or on the hand, he, too, will drink of the wine of God's fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath.”
Revelation 14:9,10

why does this not surprise me...

I love a little revelations tossed into my politics for flavor.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 05/22/2022 at 10:49:46